Ranganath, N; Sarkar, D; Patel, P and Patel, S (2022) Application of fuzzy TOPSIS method for risk evaluation in development and implementation of solar park in India. International Journal of Construction Management, 22(14), pp. 2764-2774. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Renewable energy sector projects like development and implementation of solar power plants are given preference and boost in India to meet the target for generation of green and clean energy. Like other complex infrastructure projects, the solar power projects also face risks and uncertainties throughout all the phases. Although new techniques and methods are introduced, risk assessment for projects remains an unstructured problem that depends on human expertise. This paper aims at identifying the risks involved and associated with all the phases of the solar power project in India and develop a methodology of risk analysis through application of Fuzzy TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarities to Ideal Solution) methodology. Risk severity has been computed through computation of Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution (FPIS), Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution (FNIS) and Closeness Coefficient (CC). It has been observed that the risk severity of phase 1 ranges between moderate to high. Phase 2 ranges between high to very high, phase 3 and 4 are very high and finally phase 5 varies between moderate to high. Thereby the project authorities cannot afford to ignore any of the phases. Furthermore, suitable corrective and preventive risk mitigation measures have been recommended.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy TOPSIS; risk analysis; risk evaluation; risk management; solar power project |
| Index terms: | risk management, risk assessment, India, infrastructure project, implementation, clean energy, fuzzy topsis, computation, methodology, renewable energy, risk analysis, risk mitigation, preference, solar power, face |
| Subjects: | decision-making and reasoning, research methods, Geography, financial risk, decision-making and optimization, infrastructure and transport systems, environmental hazards, risk assessment, computational methods, psychology, energy systems, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Organizational Design, Cost Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Risk Management, Procurement, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here